Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would you ignore similar legislation against gun ownership? Gun ownership is settled law....not to worry.
A key difference is that tax dollars don't go to gun manufactures, nor do tax dollars subsidize the purchase of firearms (unless you're Eric Holder illegally sending them to Mexico, of course).
I want anyone who wants an abortion (aside from partial birth) to be able to get one, no questions asked. However, I want them to pay for it - ever time. I don't want one cent of tax money going toward abortions, birth control, anything. You want to have fun, pay the price. I gladly would.
So...Bill Clinton is the most conservative president we've had in the past 100 years or so?
In many ways, he was arguably more conservative than GW Bush economically.
During the Clinton years, opposing parties controlling the White House and Congress worked as it should. Now you have a President who refuses to negotiate with anyone, and a media who is sure to kiss his arse and frame every story to place blame on the other side.
Most of my family members are Teachers and Law Enforcement Officers, he lied to them and screwed them big time.
They should thank him for saving their cushy retirements and lifelong virtually-free health benefits. If Christie hadn't gotten the reforms he did, the state would've declared bankruptcy and they would have (get ready to have your mind blown here...) had to save and plan like everyone else.
I'm also glad he got rid of some of the double dipping, but there's a lot more work to do. Look at your county prosecutors' offices around the state. How many full-time, publicly-employed detectives are also collecting retirement checks out of the state PFRS fund? How many DoE employees are collecting teacher/administrator retirements? It'll make you want to vomit. I won't even go into all those questionable "disability" retirements in police departments. If you want the dirty little secret, ask your relatives about that old gag.
The next step is completely eliminating ALL defined pensions, period.
The real number is really the surplus/deficit as a % of GDP. It was at -10.1% in 2009 (which is not Obama's budget) and was the highest spending year since WW2. However, it does show that Obama has decreased this amount every year of his Presidency. It was -9.0% in 2010, -8.7% in 2011, is projected at -8.5% in 2012 and will drop from -5.5% in 2013 to -3.0% in 2017.
If those projections hold steady, Obama will have reduced deficit spending as a % of GDP by around 336% from 2009 to 2017. No President in history, with the exception of Truman following WW2 would have reduced deficit spending by that much. If they hold true, Obama will leave us with a better balanced fiscal situation then was left by either Reagan or HW Bush.
my quick calc of 2011 puts it above 9% and 2012 looks to be even higher than 2011. i have a feeling your projections arent going to come true. im surprised to see you practically giving obama credit for a future that will not happen.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 01-08-2013 at 06:16 PM..
In many ways, he was arguably more conservative than GW Bush economically.
During the Clinton years, opposing parties controlling the White House and Congress worked as it should. Now you have a President who refuses to negotiate with anyone, and a media who is sure to kiss his arse and frame every story to place blame on the other side.
In many ways, he was arguably more conservative than GW Bush economically.
During the Clinton years, opposing parties controlling the White House and Congress worked as it should. Now you have a President who refuses to negotiate with anyone, and a media who is sure to kiss his arse and frame every story to place blame on the other side.
In terms of spending, a long time ago I found an interesting link that looked at Federal spending by party in both Congress and the Presidency. It then calculated the best combination for lowest levels of increased spending (no one has actually cut spending since WW2). I cannot find the link, but I do remember that the combo resulting in lowest increases was a Dem President and a Rep Congress. That was followed in order:
Rep President w/ Dem Congress
Dem President w/ Dem Congress
Rep President w/ Rep Congress
It is very true that opposite parties in power, while they tend to create gridlock also tend to produce better legislation.
As for the "President refusing to negotiate", I just don't see that as the case. The Rep's in Congress have been very unwilling to compromise for the past two years. It took both Gingrich and Clinton compromising and working together to achieve what they did. It's not as if Newt drew a line in the sand and then made Clinton jump over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
my quick calc of 2011 puts it above 9% and 2012 looks to be even higher than 2011. i have a feeling your projections arent going to come true. im surprised to see you practically giving obama credit for a future that will not happen.
The far right column in the table gives the "Surplus/Deficit as a % of GDP". The numbers I quoted for the future are the ones they state based on current CBO projections. Do I think the projection will hold true? I don't know and I'm sure the numbers moved since then as the link is from April 2012. I was simply using the source that you provided to make the point. I also did state that "if the projections hold steady". I'm not giving anyone credit for anything until it happens and 2017 is a long way off, a lot can change. I'm merely pointing out the numbers that show compared from Bush's last budget at -10.1% to Obama's current budget at -8.5% that 2.6 point swing to the positive is equal to what was achieved by Reagan in the 80's and Clinton in the 90's.
The far right column in the table gives the "Surplus/Deficit as a % of GDP". The numbers I quoted for the future are the ones they state based on current CBO projections. Do I think the projection will hold true? I don't know and I'm sure the numbers moved since then as the link is from April 2012. I was simply using the source that you provided to make the point. I also did state that "if the projections hold steady". I'm not giving anyone credit for anything until it happens and 2017 is a long way off, a lot can change. I'm merely pointing out the numbers that show compared from Bush's last budget at -10.1% to Obama's current budget at -8.5% that 2.6 point swing to the positive is equal to what was achieved by Reagan in the 80's and Clinton in the 90's.
just because its my link doesnt mean im willing to stand behind those estimates. i was just using the site for the revenue/expenditure numbers. the CBO changes projections more frequently than my wife changes purses and the numbers are always ultimately wrong. one thing that would be interesting would be to compare projections with realities.
how confident are you that the 2017 number will be 3%? to me, its a level of confidence so low that isnt even worth considering that number.
just because its my link doesnt mean im willing to stand behind those estimates. i was just using the site for the revenue/expenditure numbers. the CBO changes projections more frequently than my wife changes purses and the numbers are always ultimately wrong. one thing that would be interesting would be to compare projections with realities.
how confident are you that the 2017 number will be 3%? to me, its a level of confidence so low that isnt even worth considering that number.
I'm not confident in it. I think it's possible, but not probable that they will get to that number. If I had to guess, we probably stay at around -5% to -6%, which would still be a massive improvement over where we were in 2009.
So you were willing to flush the nation down the economic toilet because a milquetoast Mitt Romney didn't support your version of gay marriage?
Good God, do we have some weak-minded and selfish voters in this country.
I don't want to speak for CanonGrace, but for me and I'd guess many of us who feel this way, this is about much more than gay marriage or any single issue. To me the far right is about hate and fear, and I happen to believe that hate and fear can't result in anything except more hate and fear.
When I look at the crowds at Tea Party rallies and their hate-filled shouting and signs, I feel they are the same people, generations later, who cheered as the Protestants burned, as the slaves were hung, as the trains pulled out for Auschwitz. It blows my mind that the far right is thought of as Christian, because to me it is the opposite, and it makes me terrified for our future that people with such (IMO) backward thinking could one day run my country. There is no economic policy that would cause me to deliberately help bring these people to power. If that makes me selfish, so be it, but it is not something I can nor want to change about myself.
To me the divide between the far right and the socially liberal is not as much about policy as it is about a fundamentally different view of the world and the kind of world we envision as ideal, that is why we are unable to see each others' sides when we try to talk about it.
Agree or not, but IMO if the Republican leadership continues to put its' collective heads in the sand rather than embrace more socially liberal candidates, it is to their own detriment.
I don't want to speak for CanonGrace, but for me and I'd guess many of us who feel this way, it's much more than any one issue. To me the Conservative party is about hate and fear, and I don't think that can result in anything except more hate and fear. When I look at the people at conservative rallies, I feel they are the same people, generations later, who cheered as the Protestants burned, as the slaves were hung, as the trains pulled out for Auschwitz. It blows my mind that the far right is thought of as Christian, because to me it is the opposite, and it makes me terrified for our future that people with such (IMO) backward thinking could one day run my country. There is no economic policy that would cause me to deliberately help bring these people to power. If that makes me selfish, so be it, but it is not something I can nor want to change about myself.
To me the divide between the far right and the socially liberal is not as much about policy as it is a fundamentally different view of the world and the kind of world we envision as ideal, and that can't be changed with policy. If the Republican leadership continues to put its' collective heads in the sand rather than embrace more socially liberal candidates, it is to their own detriment, IMO.
is it the republican leaderships fault that you have decided to believe in some ridiculous fictitious view of the republican party and conservatives? i guess they could be blamed for not better marketing themselves but you should also be blamed for believing such silliness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
